Should ISPs Be Allowed To Delete Your MP3s? 256
Water Paradox asks: "A friend of mine recently
discovered that his ISP had deleted all of his MP3 files without notice. He is a succesful local DJ with numerous recordings to his name, and the MP3s were all of his own material. He said he zipped them up and within 8 hours, they were back on his site, so all is well. My question is, are other people experiencing this? Perhaps this is a question for Ralph Naderians, but what resources do we as ISP users have against this kind of action?" The ISP in question is Half Price Hosting, and aparently they have an automated process that deletes all MP3s from their servers. Now I do agree that ISPs have the right to police their machines, but is it really right for them to delete files from a user's Web site without even a nastygram explaining why such action was taken? What should we do when ISPs resort to this type of behavior and they are the ones in the wrong? This is a fairly important issue as everyone on the Internet deals with an ISP of some form. If this behavior isn't checked, the next time something like this might happen it could be any file, not just MP3s. Update: 11/23 by J : As several comments have noted, grep their
terms of service for "MP3" (Cliff and I would have done this last night but their website was down). Then go read your ISP's terms...
Re:They shouldn't be allowed (Score:1)
Stored of YOUR disks, no, on THEIR disks, yes. (Score:1)
Find a better hosting service (Score:2)
There are plenty of other hosting services, many of which charge the same as or less than this one.
So let them run their business their way, catering to low-end users who rely on Frontpage instead of skill to create their sites, and take your business someplace else.
- Robin
Re:Check the Terms of Service (Score:1)
That's more or less what they ended up doing in the end. Can't check the final wording anymore, though, because they've since been bought by uunet.
--
Re:Check the Terms of Service (Score:2)
Now, in order to shortcut a lot of useless discussion: they have that right (a.k.a the right to behave in a stupid and/or silly way), I think they should have it too, and know nobody who would actually disagree with that. It's their operation, after all. Conclusion so far: why was this topic posted on Ask Slashdot in the first place? Seems like there's nothing much to talk about.
On the other hand, an ISP that's not totally braindead will not invent this kind of rule, and will certainly not enforce it in this braindead way. Still, they're not alone in their sillyness. When I was shopping for an ISP some 5 years ago, I actually read the AUPs of all the Belgian ISPs that I could find. To my surprise, the AUP of the then biggest Belgian ISP had several holes in it, and also contained the rule that transfering copyright material over their network was prohibited. It took me nearly six months to convince them that there was copyright material that could be legally copied. The fact that their legal department hadn't yet heard of Linux and the GPL surely didn't help. I guess I should have picked a more mainstream example. Anyway, I ended up choosing a competitor long before they saw the light (but went on trying to convince them, and finally did).
--
What should we do? (Score:1)
Re:Check the Terms of Service (Score:2)
By posting MP3:s on Half-Price, you are violating their rules.
Very well, then post Ogg Vorbis [xiph.org] files instead.
--Bud
Re:It's very simple (Score:5)
It's best to leave once you've found a more friendly ISP, particularly one that notifies you of any actions they take on your account and give you a chance to defend yourself without arbitrarily deleting files.
It's like any other market with products, you should investigate the product before putting the money down. Usually there is a lot of information out there to help you determine if the product is worthwhile. If there isn't any, move on to a different product or take a risk with that one. It's your money. Often a product selected on price alone will suck, keep that in mind too. I investigate everything I buy now, not because I've had trouble, but I want to make sure my money is best spent, and even if I find problems while investigating I end up buying because, I can work around it, I like knowing what I might run into as well as the chances.
It's also a good thing to ask questions before signing up, check their reputation, check to see if their customer support is worth their name, investigate their history of dealing with customers and _read_ the acceptable use policy!
It really sucks that you have to do this, but IMO I think it's better than regulating the ISP market.
Re:It's their server, they can do what they want. (Score:1)
Re:No its not ok (Score:1)
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Almost, but not quite (Score:2)
Nice analogy - except that there is no legal way to use a car without the owner's permission, so locking your car doesn't bar any legal activity.
In this case, the ISP's UAP explicitly states that distributing MP3 files is not accepted. So to hell with them. GZip some wave files instead, or distribute RealAudio or OGG Vorbis files instead, or, heck, why not store them as MPEG files without any video?
Or ofcourse, you could contact the ISP and explain to them that you're a DJ and that those MP3 files are all your own creation and are all legal. They might actually be reasonable and allow you to keep them.
)O(
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
Re:What the hell happened? (Score:2)
Well, everyone and his brother showed up wanting ten times the bandwidth for half the price.
Because when the prices were driven down the bandwidth overcommit was driven up. Sure you can get 768Kbit DSL for $30/month in some places, but they (probbably) have a 100 to 1 overcommit on the bandwidth. So they craft an acceptable use policy that limits the amount of bandwith that gets used, and most people (say 98%) are happy.
The people that arn't should probbably look into ISPs that have looser AUPs, but they should also realise that there is likely to be a larger price tag on "unlimited" serveces that really are unlimited.
Does it suck that you can't get real unlimited access for cheep/free? Sure. But it sucks that I can't fly unassisted either (well, it's actually that I can't make a good landing).
Pretty much since the first offering of "unmetered access". It still cost the ISP to have you dialed in (even if it only cost a modem port and voice circuit that couldn't let me dial in while your on). So they started claming you can't run services, can't camp on the line, can't run ping scripts to keep the line up.
One was even pretty pissed at a friend of mine who ran NNTP to keep his clock in sync because it kept the line up. Of corse it didn't violate their AUP so they had to lump it (they did send threating email once a month and he sent his canned reply every month).
You can still buy dial-up accounts without that kind of restriction, but they cost per hour. Just like you can get leased lines without server restrictions (most have restrictions against wholesaling the bandwidth to others, but you can get even more expensave connections without that restriction).
Re:What the hell happened? (Score:2)
Five years ago you could get 56K, ISDN and Frame Relay as steps between dialup and T1. Probbably X.25 some other random X.25 services as well. I'm pretty sure Frame Relay was available a lot longer ago then five years as well.
Of corse to be honest Frame Relay use to be delevered as a physical T1 (or 56K for small FR CIRs), but it was billed very diffrently, and had diffrent bandwidth (selectable, but lower) and latency (not so selectable, and higher) from a "raw" T1. I have heard Frame Relay is frequently done as a physical DSL line now, at least in some cases.
Re:What the hell happened? (Score:2)
Actually at the ISP end they get a full T1 or T3 into the cloud and serve multiple customers with it (assuming there are multiple in that area, otherwise they would just get a fraction into the cloud).
That provides the ISP with a cost savings, a space savings, and somewhat less setup hassle as well.
They were not hard to find. Were not all that painful to install (they had fewer line options then a T1 let alone ISDN - the only I rember were 2-wire vs. 4-wire). May have been a worse deal then a frac. T1. Almost certonally were a worse deal then a dialup, unless you couln't FX your dial up line into a local calling area and wanted to nail the call up 24hrs/day.
Now if you want painful to install, and cost ineffectave, look into 3002 circuts (leased voice lines - I think - I never installed any, my boss did both the first, and later the last ones that UUNET ever sold).
Five years ago I had a 56K Frame Relay which came over a phsycal 56K (and it was free, at least to me). It was pretty nice. I have a 256K Frame Relay now (over a fractional T1 -- unless they changed it without me noticing) which I like a lot more. Esp. as the price hasn't changed. However that means I can't recall how close to 56Kbit/sec modems were five years ago.
Definitly depends on the RBOC. Was not a good deal from Bell Atlantic unless you were online less then about 60hrs/month. Was a great deal from one of the lame RBOCs (US Worst? Amaritech?) because their billing system didn't make it easy to do metered usage, they did flat rate.
Offer? I don't know. It has been sold though. UUNET use to sell it to one or two customers. I'm not 100% sure why, but I beleve the customers had lots of X.25 experiance, and didn't want anything else.
Well there was web hosting (UUNET had it five years ago), and fractional T1's. The frac T1 (at least in Frame Relay form) may have been phsycally a T1, but cost wise it was a totally other animal. Totally. I mean for most RBOCs there isn't even a wire-mile charge!
"What is an MP3?" (Score:5)
Is it a file with the suffix '.mp3' (What if I rename it?)
Is it a file which the 'file' utility declares has the relevant magic numbers at the beginning?
What if I zip it?
What if I base64 encode (or uuencode) it?
What if I encrypt it?
In all cases, to play it I could have a wrapper script to undo the obusfaction and give me those MP3 bits.
An automatic job which deletes things is a stupid thing to do. Its an attempt at a technological solution to a social problem. If the ISP doesn't want you doing things, it should notify you in the Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).
If you violate the AUP you suffer - perhaps a warning and then junk the account, exactly as ISPs do with spam accounts.
Going round and deleting files is just foolish. Sigh.
Storage rather than I/O? (Score:1)
Beats me why they should want you to remove the MP3s once you've got them there. After all, from an ISP's point of view, what they really want you to do is not even get them there in the first place.
A few 30Gb disks aren't going to set them back a huge amount, so storing the puppies isn't a problem.
It's the cost to them of you bringing in huge files. They pay serious money for the bandwidth.
The steganographic approaches advocated elsewhere are valid here, too. What happens when the ISP doesn't want you even napstering?
I had this myself. I have a shell account on a small-scale, large feature provider. He noticed I was napstering, he asked me not to as it was chewing his bandwidth, I agreed and now I do it from work
Would the ISPs be reacting in the same way if you download the mozilla milestone builds daily, or keep up with the huge Gnome distributions (or similar?)
Re:Plain and simple (Score:1)
The ISP's AUP said "No MP3s, and no download sites" If the guy was putting MP3s up their so they could be downloaded then he was in breach of their AUP. He is at fault, not the ISP.
AS far as your hysterical rant (troll?) about sueing them, jesus, grow up.
Re:The actions of the few harm the many (Score:2)
Simple solution.. (Score:1)
Re:It's their server, they can do what they want. (Score:2)
I'll admit, I didn't remember that clause when I signed up to use them but I know that I didn't look at it too closely since I assumed that by now I'd be running my own web server.
Heck I just the domain mostly for email anyway.
I have zipped up the mp3s that I've shared to people anyway.
Who owns what? (Score:1)
ogg? (Score:2)
Re:Problem with clear policy... (Score:1)
Call them a web hosting company not just an ISP (Score:1)
This company appears to have no leverage in restricting competition or forcing customers to choose their service. Allowing such companies to offer different levels of service in exchange for lower prices as long as there are no barriers to competition seems to me to be the essence of the proper functioning of free markets. This seems to be another pointless flamewar where the usual suspects are trotted out.
It's all in the format. (Score:2)
Zipping that changes the actual format of the file to a zip format file (regardless of extension).
This, then, is apparently perfectly ok to serve from the ISP.
To me, this whole exercise by the ISP is futile. Yes, they make their stand against piracy, but, it's an ultimately futile one.
Deleting people's data is a no-no. Especially on an extension of a file. Can this ISP guarantee that no other application for any operating system anywhere in world does not use
If they delete a very important file (non mp3-encoded) which just happens to have that extension, for whatever reason, then they could feasibly open themselves up for a big lawsuit.
As was mentioned in a post above, there is almost no way to guarantee whether the file is MP3 format without actually reading it, and doing a verification of format. Expensive on time.
The best way is really to auto-mail the account holder with warnings that their account may be revoked unless they either remove the files, or explain why they should be given dispensation for having the files there.
This seems fairer, and would make pirates very uncomfortable about using this as an ISP, while balancing things for legitimate use.
Cheers,
Malk
My suggestion (Score:2)
Then immediately sue them for hosting your MP3 illegally.
Since they are censoring their customers they cannot pretend that they are common carriers. If they censor their customers, then any oversight in the censorship opens them up to being bent over the rail in a courtroom.
WARNING: MISLEADING LINK (Score:1)
-David T. C.
Re:Check the Terms of Service (Score:1)
-David T. C.
Re:Seriously... (Not intended as flamebait, but al (Score:1)
Fantastic logic. So, if I should declare - in my own arbitrary way - that 99% of all JPEG files out there are pr0n, it will justify deleting all .jpg files on a server?
Face it, the ISP just has some PHB-inspired and MOO-dia driven paranoia. MPEG layer 3 is one of many audio file formats - why should a pirated song in a different format be allowed (which it appears to be, implicitly)?
Next time read the contract! (Score:1)
If you look at their AUP, which is located here [halfpricehosting.com], you'll see that they explicitly forbid the storage of MP3 files on thier servers, regardless of who has the rights to it, regardless of wether they're legal MP3s or not, and regardless of wether you want to put them there or not. This is the relevant section from their policy page:
4.1.5. The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
Frankly, since storing MP3s on the site was against their policy, he's lucky they didn't apply the $300 per instance of violation service charge that they promise right below that. While I'm not saying that storing MP3 files is bad, I am saying that when you place a file of any type on a server who has banned files of that type, you shouldn't be surprised when they remove them, and the AUP is all of the warning that needed to be given.
Get over it (Score:1)
I am the founder of an old ISP business in Colorado, and we delete core files, clean out the /tmp area, and do other automated cleanups all the time. We specifically state in our service contract that we have the right to refuse all or part of our service to anyone, for any reason. There's plenty of alternatives out there if you don't like it.
This whole idea of compelling businesses to adhere to some whiny customer's unbusinesslike wishes makes me furious.
hey, it's half-price hosting (Score:1)
-lx
Why TSOs are evil! :) (Score:2)
IMO ISPs have no business deleting a users files without warning. It'd be reasonable to move them out of the html tree and send a notice that they'll delete the files in a week but to just destroy data, even seemingly useless data like MP3's, could destroy years of work in some cases. ISPs also tend to make it against their TOS to run personal servers which is impossible to comply with as every second rate program opens services up. If you've used ICQ or a similar program you're guilty of breaking your TOS most likely. Luckily most ISPs don't pull your account unless they feel you're a security risk, your eatting to much bandwidth, or your a commercial server so we're probably safe.
I've also seen ISPs with TOS that said you had to use Wintel. I'm sure a lot of people on here would be rbeaking that lil rule. If you wouldn't like your service disconnected for running non-Wintel then don't claim that anyone that breaks their TOS deserves what they get. I understand ISPs have to cover their ass but some of their TOS's are just unfair and often users have little in the way of alternatives.
Be kind to your mum, she used to wipe your bum (Score:1)
So you ask "Well what can I do oh sultan of sarcasm who has little patience for our GPL communist GroupThink RMS clone ideals?" Go to a hosting company and get a co-location box. Don't rent or lease this box though, build it yourself and have them plug it into their network. In this situation you're no longer renting the host's hardware, merely bandwidth. Hosts usually don't give a fuck what is inside the packets flooding out from their network they just want to make surer you're paying for the bytes you're transfering. Or even better, pay for your own fucking dedicated connection and run a host from your house. If you do either of these things you get to write your own damn TOS and then you can stop whining and try to get Apache running on Hurd.
Re:Many/(most?) ISP's have onerous agreements, but (Score:2)
Re:It's very simple (Score:2)
Re:Find a better hosting service (Score:2)
Re:They should have the right to do what they want (Score:1)
I don't know how much clearer it can get.
It may be clear to you, but remember this is a service for ordinary consumers. Suppose I am using some web-authoring tool where I sing into my computer mic and it makes a little music icon, which I drag onto my website. Then Half Price Hosting blows away my song so I take them to court.
If I'm lucky I'll get a computer illiterate judge who thinks "MP3 format file" is some kind of arcane technical jargon that no ordinary person could be expected to understand.
If you were the Half Price lawyer how would you explain this to the judge? Perhaps you would start by explaining what a "file" is, and when he understands that you could explain "format" and then "MP3".
Contract (Troll?) (Score:2)
.00385 % (Score:2)
Of course they should be allowed. (Score:2)
However, we as customers should choose not to use such an isp
--
Re:ISPs and policiing (Score:1)
When you sign up for service, whether it is online or offline, you are always told to either put a check in the "read terms of service agreement" or in many cases (not all) you are required to initial or sign the paper version of the terms of service and return it to the ISP.
Whether you read it or not is irrelavent, however if you are unhappy with the service, go elsewhere.
Just take my advice, always.. ALWAYS read the fine print, the terms of service, and their acceptable use policy.
Re:Check the Terms of Service (Score:2)
Wow, that's pretty vague. I own the copyrights in the photographs I take, so if I post them on my own web site for people to look at, I'd be against their AUP?!
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
Re:"What is an MP3?" (Score:1)
Happy turkey day, all.
---
As the update says.. (Score:2)
Vote with your money people. If you don't like the TOS, GO SOMEWHERE ELSE. You might find that the people who provide the kind of service you actually want actually cost more.
Re:Plain and simple (Score:2)
Re:Check the Terms of Service (Score:1)
Unless of course another subclause in the Terms of Service says that mere presence will be taken as proof of distribution.
With a policy like that, they should call it. . . (Score:1)
Re:Seriously... (Not intended as flamebait, but al (Score:1)
Penalty kick, line-up, try, conversion.
Re:"What is an MP3?" (Score:2)
Re:inacceptable ! (Score:1)
(And yes, I know Apache runs under NT...)
Looks pretty clear to me. (Score:2)
Copyright issues aside, mp3's take up a lot of space and occupy a lot of bandwidth. Hosting services are tying to offer a service to a large number of customers for the legitimate hosting of webpages that needs more space or more bandwidth than the average user can provide themselves. They are not designed to handle the excessive amount of bandwidth that is consumed by anyone who manages to find the mp3's. Porn has a similar effect, which is why it is probably prohibited as well, as well as the fact that it brings upon itself a plethora of legal problems too.
Do they have to notify you? no. You were notified when you read the Terms of Service before you signed up. You DID read the terms of service, right?
mp3.com and I would imagine other similar services are available for the legitimate hosting of mp3's and probably cost less than your current hosting provider, if thats the service you actually require.
-Restil
Re:What the hell happened? (Score:2)
Want to know why? I shopped around. I found an ISP that was willing to provide to me unlimited, unrestrained access and I made sure they really meant it before I signed up. I also get 16 static ip addresses and the ability to host my own domain as a result, all within the confines of my own network.
I get all of this for a grand total of $300 a month. (including all phone company charges)
If you pay less than that amount a month, you should expect some type of restriction as a result as the isp cannot afford to offer you a low rate service and at the same time assume you're going to use 100% of your bandwidth at all times. If you DO that, you're abusing the system.
Guess what, when cable modems came out and thousands of people were serving mp3's and god knows what else to the world, and cable modem services became practically unusable as a result, the company did the only thing it could do. It chopped the upstream rate to a pathetic 128kbps and restricted ALL servers of all kinds. You
brought it upon yourself, don't complain about it.
The cost is still in line with what you would pay the isp+phone company for a dialup connection.
This is the real cost of piracy. The authors/artists/software companies are not the real victims, nor are the consumers that must pay "higher prices" for their software. Those effects are negligable. The real victims are the innocent users of high speed connections who have had to have their inexpensive lines horribly crippled in an effort to protect the isp.
In case you really do need it, you can pay a few bucks more and get a less restricted cable or dsl connection. This may not necessarily be on the front page, but no business is gonna scoff at extra money for legitimate use. The abusers won't go for it so the option is still available. And if you have the cash, get a T1. Of course, its hard to justify a T1 for residential use, but 5 years ago, you had T1 and dialup and nothing in between. How did you survive back then? Not that I'm saying we should revert back, but in spirit of this US holiday, be thankful for what you have.
-Restil
Use an MP3 hosting service? (Score:1)
Re:The actions of the few harm the many (Score:1)
It's not about laws and copyright (Score:1)
4. Bandwidth & Utilization
In addition to the other terms of this agreement, which apply to all plans, bandwidth and utilization, by its nature, is subject to a number of differing and/or additional terms.
4.1 The Company provides the unlimited space and unlimited transfer in good faith to our Customers so that they may create their Websites without the fear of running over their Web space or Web traffic allocation. While most Customers will use the extra Web space and traffic for their legitimate Web site needs, we recognize that others may try to take advantage of our offer and use the space and traffic in ways for which it is not intended. In the best interests of our Customers and in an effort to maintain the integrity of our service, the following common sense rules will apply:
(snip)
4.1.5. The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
What they are worried about is their hardware and their connection.
What worries me more about their TOS (Score:1)
Accoring to this, you can't link to any pages or graphics stored on other servers. That's kind of silly.
Re:Check the Terms of Service (Score:1)
If it happens to be something I am interested in, I perform a quick copy and send the files to my workstation.
And how is this not violating copyright law as the user has just done?
Re:"What is an MP3?" (Score:1)
Seems to me like this was a logical thing for a hosting company to do, lots of sysadmins do similar things on their systems to ensure they don't run out of disk space.
...we can see that it has little to do with disk space. For instance AVIs and WAVs are permitted, I'd suggest reposting the music as WAV >:)
They're just freakin' arbitrary and weird. Look at this rule: "All HTML pages MUST be linked to files (HTML, .jpg, .gif, etc.) stored on Company's server and vice versa" That basically can mean "no links to interesting sites, and nobody can link to you either." Nuts. (And keep in mind "[the] Company shall be the sole and final arbiter as [to] the interpretation of the following.")
However... it's their machinery, and you're free to not be their customer...
Re:Seriously... (Not intended as flamebait, but al (Score:1)
As I pointed out elsewhere, WAVs are explicitly permitted in the Terms; he should post his music that way and see what happens. (They'd probably chuck it out under some reading of the file download limit... even though the Web is probably mostly file downloads, dynamically-generated content is debatable, no?)
Get 'em back... (Score:2)
ln -s
ln -s
ln -s
Ryan
The Golden Law (Score:2)
Look at some of the US laws mentioned on Slashdot. These are not laws that interfere with big business' money - these are laws that enforce or add to corporate power. Citizens of the US are right to be wary of laws - beucracy and corporate influence on the politcal machine do not benefit freedom.
What the hell happened? (Score:2)
//Phizzy
Re:Were they his material? (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:Simple answer (Score:2)
we have unlimited storage, but up to a limit. That's not very unlimited, is it? it's even worse than having a limit. they can change the limit at will. basically, if they don't like you, your website, or its visitors they can cut you off.
//rdj
Re:Seriously... (Not intended as flamebait, but al (Score:2)
I'd only chug them all if they were mine. but these were someone elses apples, so it's not theirs to throw away.
//rdj
Re:An ISP Owner Perspective (Score:2)
//rdj
//rdj
Re:An ISP Owner Perspective (Score:2)
//rdj
Re:An ISP Owner Perspective (Score:5)
//rdj
Seriously... (Not intended as flamebait, but alas) (Score:5)
And if anything, he agreed to the terms of srevice which explicitly state:
4.1.5. The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
Which are clearly shown at http://www.halfpricehosting. com
So the only right he has is to go pound sand or to find a new provider. Sorry to burst the bubble, but if you agree with terms of service, and then violate them, you don't have a right to complain- or at least nobody has to listen.
Point, match, set.
It's very simple (Score:5)
Sure, you can report them to the Better Business Bureau, but that just amounts to the same thing, customers leaving (or never signing on). Sure, you could try and take them to court for breaching their own policies, but they can pretty much change their policies whenever they like for whatever reason they like. What it boils down to is that you have very few protections that apply when it comes to dealing with a private company. It's been said before, but it's worth repeating that things like the First Amendment don't apply when you're dealing with a private company in this manner.
All you have is the power of your money. Use it.
-Todd
---
Re:Work-around (Score:3)
Data Transfer - Explanation
In 1996, we were one of the first providers to
provide "unlimited traffic" as a standard feature
with all plans. Since then, this terminology has
come under fire for various reasons. As a result,
web hosting companies have been forced to
re-evaluate the way in which traffic allotments were
depicted.
Here's our philosophy in a nutshell...
Chances are, if you are looking to buy web hosting
services in a "shared" environment, you are not
going to be a high traffic site. You may get a lot
of hits and be successful - but you won't be a major
concern when it comes to bandwidth. If you were a
high-traffic site, you would probably need a
dedicated server.
Since 1996, we have only had a handful of customers
abuse this "unlimited" bandwidth feature. It usually
comes from site that is offering illegal copies of
software, or had content that was not in compliance
with our Terms of Service.
As a result, we have changed to an "unrestricted"
traffic model. This means that unless your site
compromises the performance of the web server
(which, by the way, probably won't happen), or the
performance of our network - we don't care how much
traffic you have. Your site should be successful.
What distinguishes our plans is the features that
are available - not the traffic limitations.
The first question this poses is, "How can you offer
unlimited traffic if all you have is an OC3
connection?". Simple, we can't. Neither can anyone
else. The reality is that your site can use as much
of our available bandwidth as it wants - without
fear of penalty. Just don't hurt our server or the
network. We figured that it was about time that a
hosting company explained this very confusing issue.
If you have any questions, please contact our sales
department.
NOTE: You can not have adult sites, download sites
and MP3s on our servers.
You always have the right to complain (Score:3)
At this point someone tosses in "ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law." But no one is breaking the law. Is this child porn? No.
Did they bother asking you if those mp3s are or aren't being distributed to non-CD owners, have they checked the logs to see if these things are being downloaded en masse. Did they ask the user if this he owns the work?
Nope, they just did a blanket delete of
I can imagine the day when most people have broadband and suddenly there's a blacklist on mov, mpg, asf, etc. We can degenerate back to a text only internet and toss in strict declarations of copyright because someone, somewhere might be sued.
Yes, he should leave that ISP. Anyone in that situation should inform others about their policies and blacklist them before they blacklist more of our formats.
Using your bad apple analogy, this is a country where we sell bongs, blank CDs, cable test chips, guns (constant abuse of sales and carry laws) etc. A small percentage of these things are used legally We accept things like these because a democracy has the responsibility to protect the rights of the minority.
pair.com (Score:2)
Re:"What is an MP3?" (Score:4)
I found this on IRC earlier, transcript follows:
17 w45 m3!!! 1 0wn3d j00 4nd d3l373d 411 j00r mp3 f1l3zzz!!! ph33r m33, 1 4m u171m473 31337 h4xx0r d00d!!!
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
Re:The actions of the few harm the many (Score:2)
So now it is MP3==crime?
There are people who copy music illegally in MP3 format. Therefore your ISP has a right to delete all files with .mp3-suffix from your account? Without even asking whether your files just might be fully legal; without even hearing your side of the story? I, for one, have hundreds of megabytes of MP3-files. And believe it or not, they are all legal.
There are a huge number of things that can also be used to commit crimes (crowbars, knives, tights, ...). However, you are still not allowed to confiscate every crowbar your see, "just in case" ("you know, that janitor-looking fellow might well be a burglar").
It is too bad if the ISPs are afraid of being sued by the copyright owners. Maybe, instead of deleting another people's property, they should be in some other business that would be more "legally safe". Or at least they should have an acceptable use policy, signed by all of their users, that clearly states that all files ending with .mp3 may be deleted without warning...
In this particular case it seems that the real blame does not lie with the pirates, but with a clueless ISP.
An ISP Owner Perspective (Score:5)
Here in Austin, commonly branded the Live Music Capital of the World, we have a lot of independent, young, struggling musicians, and we host a number of their websites, which include MP3's. So for us it would obviously be a BadThing(tm) to just blindly start deleting MP3's.
We take the view that that users are responsible for what they store in their home directories. If someone points out a ToS violation, we'll look into it, take the appropriate action.
I think this is very much akin to the arguments around the searching of school lockers. In that case, kids are very much held directly responsible for the contents of their locker. Some schools do massive random searches, and that obviously holds a lot of controversy, but many (most?) only search specific lockers when there is reason to do so.
Of course the way I look at it is--if the Police came into the school, searched a locker, found something "bad"--do they prosecute the school, since they own the locker? No, they'd go after the kid. Yet in the world of web-hosting, we've seen cases of the police/etc going after the user AND the ISP. Possibly part of the "sue everyone" mind-set that seems to prevelant these days.
It's back to the whole privacy issue, I suppose. If you're that concerned over the privacy of any materials you store in your $HOME, consult the privacy policies, or ask the provider direct questions about how they handle the privacy of user data/files.
Re:The actions of the few harm the many (Score:2)
That is not what the poster said.
He said that "We shouldn't have to put up with people deleting things from our web sites, but then, bands shouldn't have to put up with people copying their art around the internet to avoid paying for somethig they want."
Your mp3's may be legal. If they are your own work, there is no problem. If they are ripped from your own CD's they are indeed legal (unless you believe the RIAA) but putting them on a web site is not.
However there *are* tons of illegally distributed mp3z out there. No ISP wants to become the home of the warez d00dz. If they want to play by the rules, they will do something. A script that deletes anything that ends in .mp3 might not be an elegant solution, but it is simple and cheap.
This guy picked the wrong ISP. Bad for him, bad for them.
More and more ISP's will rather run a clumsy rm mp3 script or charge extra for manual control than trust you. Bad for them, bad for us.
Re:The actions of the few harm the many (Score:2)
You can h4x0r a site with a Linux machine, but most people wouldn't. Or if they used Linux it would be more intresting what application they ran *under* Linux. If you want an analogy, try L0phtcrack or something similar, OK?
Besides, that is not what I was talking about.
Fact is that an mp3 file on a non-official site probably *is* illegal. (ripping your CD: OK publishing the files: Nono) The ISP will recieve some heat every time some copyright holder checks, and *will* get really tired of checking the accounts.
This is not equal to someone getting prosecuted for using/distributing Linux/L0pht/mp3z this is a sysadmin that has had it with the hassle of distinguishing legal and illegal mp3's and consequently bans them all. (or in your case, someone who suffered some script kiddie attacks from Linux users and as a result shuts anyone !Windows out, if that was possible)
Terms and Conditions ? (Score:3)
How's that for an analogy
ISPs and policiing (Score:2)
If an ISP tells me it's going to scan my site and whack files it thinks might be illegal, at least I'm warned and can take my business elsewhere.
The fact that the victim in question was not warned, and that the ISP not only deleted legal personal property of the site owner, had no way of distinguishing between legal and "illegal" (for sake of argument) content, and obviously didn't care, doesn't speak well for the ISP.
This reminds me of the kind of thing AOL used to do (I've had no contact with them in a long time; but I can't imagine things have changed). But then, AOL reserves the right to screw anyone, anytime, and puts it in writing for those who can read the droppings of attorneys.
Dave
Notice and takedown (Score:2)
It looks more like this guy's ISP has lame bandwidth and doesn't want to overload it. Change to a better hosting provider.
I've recently switched several of my sites to EZ Publishing [ezpublishing.com] in Davis, CA, which has no data transfer limits and offers 100MB for $14.95/month. This is hosting-only, no dialup. You get shell access on Linux (2.0.27, don't know which distro), PHP, mini-SQL, WUsage7.0, RealAudio, and, although Slashdot users probably don't want them, "Microsoft FrontPage Extensions". No phone support; E-mail only with 12-hour turnaround. If you can live with limited support, they're fine. The people on the other end of the E-mail support are the ones running the site. Much lower arrogance and bozo level than the big guys. I moved from Verio, which hadn't answered a support E-mail in months.
The reasoning behind the MP3 ban; a workaround (Score:2)
The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
It looks like the ISP has more of a beef with Fraunhofer and Thomson, the owners of the MP3 patents [mp3licensing.com] rather than with the RIAA. In this case, the workaround is to use the free(speech) OggVorbis format [vorbis.com].
Were they his material? (Score:2)
So he doesnt own the (c) on them, even if he mixed them himself.
Shoot the messanger... (Score:2)
Re:Check the Terms of Service (Score:2)
If this restriction hadn't been in the terms of service, Half-Price would be a god target for legal action.
Do you think He would use lightning bolts or locusts?
Work-around (Score:2)
I would check the ISP's Acceptable Use Policy and if it does NOT state 'We reserve the right to remove any file...' (or the like) - ask for total refund for 'breach of contract', suggest you may sue for 'data loss' and hunt for a new host.
Richy C. [beebware.com]
--
Re:Many/(most?) ISP's have onerous agreements, but (Score:2)
My only point was that the contract's limitations were more draconian then they need to be. Note my point about taking my buisness to someone else if they tried to enforce them; does that seem to imply I am on some populist campaign about the big bad cable company and me the poor little guy? Read before you post.
---
man sig
Re:It's very simple (Score:2)
IANAL (so this ain't advice), but you have way more rights than that.
- Deletion is destruction of private property (imagine a storage company not wanting your propane containers being stored, and instead of moving them away and sending you the bill, they put the container through a crusher). This is probably a misdemeanor.
- Modification is likely going to be a copyright violation (unless your work is "open" whatever). This is a federal offense. Modification is also vandalism, a misdemeanor.
- Making the files unavailiable without contacting you at all (or at least attempting to do so) could also leave them open to other legal challenges, perhaps "loss of income" or other strange ideas...
Get a real lawyer and see what they say. Unless the company tells you in their contract (like this company did) that they will delete/modify certain files immediately and without notice, then the company is probably liable for some of the above.
Laws and more laws... (Score:5)
Ignorance _is_ a defence:
- Never, EVER, root through a user's files without reasonable suspicion. If you do so (looking for copyright violations, etc...) you open yourself up to some major legal troubles. Basically, if you get bored and check for MP3s (doesn't matter what you say, matters what the courts think... they'll decide it's because you are looking for copyright violations) you are liable to ensure there are no other copyright violations, since you have proven you can do this and are willing to do this.
Sorry, I'm a little confusing there. Maybe this might clear it up a little:
For example, say you are a security guard. One day someone is stabbed with a dagger at your company. Would you be blamed for it? No. How could you ever tell that someone had brought something like a dagger into work with them? You don't look for that. You were ignorant.
Imagine if you had been looking through personal items at work for weapons. Would you be blamed for not finding the dagger? Probably. It slipped through your checks and balances. You are at fault for not finding it. Your activities as a security guard were negligent.
So, when someone REALLY has copyright (but illegally distributed) MP3 files on their site at Half Price Hosting, will Half Price Hosting be at fault for not finding them first? They were looking for them.
It is better not to open yourself up to legal trouble like this. Simply let the person who is breaking the law deal with their own troubles. If word gets back to you from one of the involved parties _then_ take the appropriate action: suspend the account pending investigation (by a professional, such as a PI or Police Officer -- not the sysadmin).
Just my 2 cents, and IANAL, so I'm probably wrong. If you do something stupid because of my advice, it serves ya right for listening to someone ranting on the fly at a coffee shop style news house.
Re:Work-around (Score:2)
The better bots can see through filename mangling. We have those where I work, and we use them to spot warez and MP3 sites. The REALLY good bots read the headers of all the files, and ID the file types that way, so it doesn't matter what you name them.
A friend of mine is webmaster at a university. They have a daemon that trolls all the files in userland, spots MP3s by the file header, and deletes the files...
...but not before copying them to the admin's secret MP3 stash.
Yes, it sucks that they do this. There are legitimate uses for MP3. But, but that's life... If the students want to use university resources, they have to play by university rules.
I can understand why... (Score:2)
I work(ed) at an ISP, and you could tie up a single staff member all the time, dealing with requests from the British Phonograph Association (bit like the RIAA) asking us to remove illegal mp3s that had been put into customer webspace.
As a business, do you a) employ someone to spend all their time looking at mp3 complaints, testing said files to see if they are actually illegal, mailing the RIAA type body in question, etc - or b) simply have a cronjob that deletes
Re:I can understand why... (Score:2)
Especially when its a 'free' ISP - the users didn't pay for anything.
I think if I was running an ISP, I'd probably just disallow mp3s in the terms and conditions, in bloody big lettering, on the signup page. If you've ever had to deal with one of these recording bodies, it just isn't worth fighting them when a lost customer just means a tiny loss in call revenue (and a smaller hit on your bandwidth).
People who don't like this, should go elsewhere for a provider.
Check the Terms of Service (Score:5)
4.1.5. The storage and distribution of MP3 format files via the Company network is prohibited.
By posting MP3:s on Half-Price, you are violating their rules.
If you don't read the terms of service, don't be surprised if they delete your files. ISP:s have the right to restrict what they host, but only if they make it clear what the restrictions are. If this restriction hadn't been in the terms of service, Half-Price would be a god target for legal action.
Re:Common carriers or common assh*les? (Score:2)
Personally, I think the ease with which one can register a fairly unique domain name and find a cheap (i.e. $10/month) host for content makes this a buyer's market. And certainly there are hosts out there who will provide limited bandwidth hosting for any type of content you'd like to post which is not outright illegal. I know because I use one. If you do not shop the TOS prior to making a deal with a hosting service, this is an obvious case of "caveat emptor"-- since we've all been hearing about this issue since the dawn of the home page.
inacceptable ! (Score:2)
It is a shame, a privacy violation or whatever you'd like to call it to just admit that somebody could wipe out something belonging to you, even if the MP3's presence on a web site are not "pertinent" in some cases, the owner should be advised on such irregularities instead of just being constrained to such a destruction.
Why not just using this rule in the httpd.conf file ?
RewriteRule
At least this would be a fairer action against copyright infringers.
--
The actions of the few harm the many (Score:5)
Example: If it weren't for car thieves we'd not have to bother locking our cars.
People that pirate material make things less easy for the rest of us, the honest people. We shouldn't have to put up with people deleting things from our web sites, but then, bands shouldn't have to put up with people copying their art around the internet to avoid paying for somethig they want.
This happened to me (Score:2)
By the time I got the site back up, after making a few trans-atlantic phone calls, I had lost 90% of my visitors and, TBH, I'd lost all heart in doing something that I loved. I decided to shut the site down. Needless to say I didnt pay for the month that my site was offline, even though I got threats from the ISP.
Unfortunatly I lost all control over the domain name, as they refused to let go of the technical contact listing. A shame as I lost out on a £500 offer for it too...
ISP responsibility for content (Score:2)
heise.de [heise.de] reports in this news item [heise.de] that German web hosting service 1&1-Puretec canceled a contract for hosting the site npd-aktuell.de. The site belonged to the political party NPD, which stands on the extreme right of the political spectrum, is generally viewed as being neo-Nazi, is under investigation for violating the democratic and free basic rules (bad translation of freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung) in many German federal states, and may be forbidden completely for this reason in the future. Puretec decided they didn't want the content, and canceled the contract - but they didn't (and couldn't) throw them out outright; they had to cancel the contract normally.
The reason for the cancellation is quoted to be the public image of hosting company Puretec. They are explicitly not responsible for content on sites hosted by them, so the decision was made voluntarily. If the content had been illegal (judged by German law), a hosting company must take it down as soon as they learn of it being illegal.
Generally, ISPs find themselves between a rock and a hard place: they want business, but if one customer's content offends other customers, they are in danger of losing those customers' business. Of course, taking down sites or content will put them in danger of losing business from people who don't like that...
How to police this... (Score:2)
Switch ISPs, immediately, and fire off a letter to the old ISP explaining what you have done, why you have done it, and why you will go out of your way to tell others to never use their service. If the ISP is a local outfit, you'll likely get a response, apology, and possibly even a rather favorable re-subscription offer if your letter is well thought-out and well-written. If it's a national ISP, chances are you won't get any response at all (beyond the form auto-mail). Of course, chances are equally good that the ISP woun't take any corrective action whatsoever to accomodate your needs (and may just continue deleting your files at will), so regardless of whether or not you put ripples in the pond, you're better off leaving.
Now, if your local selection of ISPs is too limited for this approach, and you're quite serious about being able to put your files in place, pay the local office a visit in person. If you can, get an appointment; otherwise, just go on in and ask to see the person in charge. The Internet is a wonderful thing, but it can't beat the influence of a visit in person. Show them that you exist, are serious about your content, and expect service from them, and even if it's a national ISP, you'll stand a good chance of at least getting -some- form of response.
$ man reality